Weighing the high cost of cancer care

Take a moment to look at these pictures. Now, ask yourself, does the woman on the left have the right to live a healthy life for medical treatment if she is unable to afford it? Now, ask yourself the same question of the young boy receiving antiretroviral drugs to prevent HIV from becoming full blown AIDS and ending his life before the age of 6?

The woman on the left is well-insured, but had to scramble to find the money to cover the high cost of her anti-cancer pills when her coverage was changed. Should she choose between personal financial ruin and homelessness potentially to cover the cost of paying for the medicine she needs? Should the government intervene? What would the Republicans think of this woman’s life? Should living be the right of the few people in the United States or countries who are wealthy enough to afford to continue living rather than being a “burden” on the so-called system?

The young boy on the right has no say in the quality of his life because he was dealt a “bad” hand from birth. His opportunities are limited because of the environmental and geo-political aspects of the region in Africa where he lives. These pictures are worlds apart but both people face the same challenges, the same worries and concerns each day. Their lives, to be sure, are both worth just as much to their families and to the world.

Drug prices are a growing issue for every disease, especially for people who are uninsured. But cancer sticker shock is hitting hard now, as a list of more advanced biotech drugs have made treatment rounds costing $100,000, or even more, no longer a rarity. Also, patients are living longer, good news but meaning they need treatment for longer periods.

How would the Democrats attack this issue regarding healthcare? How would the presumptive nominee of the Republican party who has experienced a personal battle with cancer address this pressing concern? This is what the election should be about as well as other important issues.